Facts
The petitioner, a proprietorship involved in road construction, was awarded a contract (No. CE(P) BCN/01/2023-24) by the respondents on 12.04.2023 for bituminous works on the Patnitop-Nathatop road
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2-3Work was suspended for 29 days due to inclement weather and the contract value was subsequently reduced from Rs. 2,44,10,600 to Rs. 1,50,00,000 due to non-availability of funds
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4, 7After completion, the petitioner sought reimbursement for losses via communication dated 13.08.2024
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5Following the respondents' failure to respond, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause on 13.12.2024
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5The respondents admitted the contract and its suspension but contended that under Condition 70 of the General Conditions of Contract, disputes must be referred to an Engineer Officer appointed by the authority
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 7-8Issues
1. Whether an independent arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, despite the contract specifying an "Engineer Officer" as the sole arbitrator
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9-10Law Applied
Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the court's power to appoint an arbitrator when the agreed procedure fails
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1The 2015/2019 amendments to the Act, which establish that an employee of one of the parties is ineligible to act as an arbitrator, thereby overriding contractual clauses that permit the appointment of departmental officers
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9Reasoning
The Court found that the existence of the arbitration agreement (Clause 70) and its valid invocation by the petitioner were undisputed
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9While the contract's original terms required the appointment of an "Engineer Officer," the Court reasoned that post-amendment statutory law mandates neutrality in arbitration
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9Since an employee of the respondents is legally ineligible to serve as an arbitrator, the designated departmental authority could not fulfill the role
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9Consequently, as the respondents failed to appoint an eligible arbitrator following the petitioner’s notice, the Court exercised its jurisdiction to ensure the resolution of the dispute through an independent third party
Source reference: p. 5, para. 10Holding
Statutory amendments regarding arbitrator ineligibility supersede departmental appointment clauses
The Court allowed the petition and appointed Shri Vinod Gupta, Chief Engineer (Retired), as the Sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator was directed to proceed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with fees to be shared by both parties
Source reference: p. 5-6, para. 10-12Original Court PDF
SHIVAM BUILD CON ASSOCIATES TH SHAILANDER VAIDvsUNION OF INDIA TH CHIEF ENGINEER PROJECT BEACON 56 APO AND OTHERS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in